 |
A L S O+T O D A Y
Back from the brink T A B L E+T A L K Speaker Howdy Doody? What do you think of Livingston replacement Dennis Hastert? Get partisan in the Politics area of Table Talk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E C E N T L Y Impeachment diary Lott's losing control The man Clinton could have been My dinner with Jerry Letter from Havana - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
 ![[ 21st: iMac's five fruity flavors ]](/news/1999/01/src/08newslinks.gif) |
|
 |
That wasn't foreplay, that was a four-poster!
BY LORI LEIBOVICH
That decision won't be reached until after both sides have made opening statements and there is questioning by senators. But what if witnesses do appear? How will Clinton's lawyers unleash a vigorous defense without seeming like bullies? How will lawyers and senators finesse asking sexually explicit questions without seeming crass? Criminal defense attorneys face these kinds of tricky questions every time they go into court. Just ask Ronald Kuby. A longtime associate of the late radical lawyer William Kunstler, Kuby has defended such notorious clients as Long Island Railroad killer Colin Ferguson, World Trade Center bomber Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and Malcolm X's daughter Quibilah Shabbazz, accused of plotting to kill Louis Farrakhan. Salon talked with Kuby about why the president should have settled with Paula Jones, what a Senate trial might look like and how he would question Monica Lewinsky. A senate impeachment trial has begun and the president's attorneys will have to defend him. How would you evaluate his attorneys so far? Part of the difficulty with this is that the president either got bad legal advice early on, or he got good legal advice that he refused to take. What he should have done from the outset is settle with Paula Jones. Had he settled with Paula Jones there would have been no deposition about Monica Lewinsky, no lie at the deposition, no Starr investigation, no lie to the Starr grand jury, no impeachment and no trial. That's easy to say now. But then it seemed politically impossible to settle. My experience is that frequently it is a good idea to settle the case early, to get out of it and move on. Especially since people who know Clinton knew the guy has a real problem keeping his hands off women. I tell my clients, "Look, do you really want to sit there and answer questions about every drug you've ever taken, every man, woman or frozen vegetable you may have had sex with?" My advice from the beginning would have been to settle. What is your advice now? I think his lawyers are trying to do the right thing now. They don't want witnesses. They want to say, "We agreed that all these witnesses testified to what they testified to. The real question is whether these acts are grounds for impeachment. Let's just have a vote on that, pretty please?" Sounds good, but it isn't going to happen. Right. It's hard to script out a defense. If the House goes ahead, as they intend to do, and calls Monica Lewinsky, then the president and his lawyers have a real problem. In the first article of impeachment, the primary question is whether or not President Clinton touched, kissed, fondled or caressed Monica Lewinsky's breast or breasts while she was performing oral sex on him. She said he did, and he said he never did, and he testified to this under oath to the Starr grand jury. That poses a terribly difficult problem for the defense, because if she gets up there and reiterates her statement under oath, and appears to be credible, what you're left with is cross-examination. N E X T+P A G E+| A mock cross-examination of Monica Lewinsky |
|
A renowned defense lawyer talks about some of the weird arguments the president's lawyers may make if it comes to cross-examination.